The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of a Geriatric Evaluation Unit: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Abstract
We randomly assigned frail elderly inpatients with a high probability of nursing-home placement to an innovative geriatric evaluation unit intended to provide improved diagnostic assessment, therapy, rehabilitation, and placement. Patients randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 63) and control (n = 60) groups were equivalent at entry. At one year, patients who had been assigned to the geriatric unit had much lower mortality than controls (23.8 vs. 48.3 per cent, P less than 0.005) and were less likely to have initially been discharged to a nursing home (12.7 vs. 30.0 per cent, P less than 0.05) or to have spent any time in nursing home during the follow-up period (26.9 vs. 46.7 per cent, P less than 0.05). The control-group patients had substantially more acute-care hospital days, nursing-home days, and acute-care hospital readmissions. Patients in the geriatric unit were significantly more likely to have improvement in functional status and morale than controls (P less than 0.05). Direct costs for institutional care were lower for the experimental group, especially after adjustment for survival. We conclude that geriatric evaluation units can provide substantial benefits at minimal cost for appropriate groups of elderly patients, over and above the benefits of traditional hospital approaches.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessment of Older People: Self-Maintaining and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/9.3_part_1.179 · Cited by 18,540
Cited by
Frailty in Older Adults: Evidence for a Phenotype
Fried, L. P., Tangen, C. M., Walston, J., Newman, A. B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., Seeman, T., Tracy, R., Kop, W. J., Burke, G., et al. (2001) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · doi:10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146 · Cited by 24,907
Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials
Stuck, A. E., Siu, A. L., Wieland, G. D., Rubenstein, L. Z., & Adams, J. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92884-v · Cited by 1,974
Self-citationEllis, G., Whitehead, M. A., Robinson, D., O'Neill, D., & Langhorne, P. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d6553 · Cited by 1,068
Reuben, D. B., Inouye, S. K., Bogardus, S. T., Baker, D. I., Leo‐Summers, L., & Cooney, L. M. (2000) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03885.x · Cited by 802
Rubenstein, L. Z., Stuck, A. E., Siu, A. L., & Wieland, D. (1991) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb05927.x · Cited by 597
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rubenstein, L. Z., Josephson, K. R., Wieland, G. D., English, P. A., Sayre, J. A., & Kane, R. L.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1984-12-27
- Volume
- 311
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 1664-1670
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2049713131
- Cited by
- 897
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 69.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of a Geriatric Evaluation Unit: A Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198412273112604
- The paper
- Rubenstein, L. Z., Josephson, K. R., Wieland, G. D., English, P. A., Sayre, J. A., & Kane, R. L. (1984). Effectiveness of a Geriatric Evaluation Unit: A Randomized Clinical Trial. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198412273112604
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.